Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Benson deconstructs the moral intrigues of Dorian Gray.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/65/Wilde_and_Morality

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book,” writes Wilde, “Books are well written or badly written. That is all.

I wonder why PN brings such completely moronic articles.

HexHammer wrote:

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book,” writes Wilde, “Books are well written or badly written. That is all.

I wonder why PN brings such completely moronic articles.

Hex, why is the article "completely moronic"? You should be able to give some reasons in support of your opinion of the article. If you can't, then you have committed an act of injustice to the author of the article and to PN.

Regarding Hex's opinion in this thread in this philosophy forum, this advice comes to mind: 'It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, than to speak and remove all doubt.'

I have already posted on this article:
viewtopic.php?f=2&p=179782#p179782

Here is the article's conclusion:

"Conclusion

So, to return to the question with which I began: is it true, as Wilde declared, that “there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book”? His own novel demonstrates that this is a rhetorical exaggeration. A book can have immoral effects (as Huysmans’ novel does on Dorian) but only when it is read, not for its beauty, through aesthetic spectacles, but as if it were a guide to life. And a book can contain moral and immoral acts and statements which, when they become a part of the novel ’s aesthetic pattern, shed their moral force as they contribute to the book’s aesthetic qualities (aesthetic qualities which are to be contemplated, rather than taken as a model for one’s existence).

A novel therefore is not moral or immoral in itself (only a human being could be moral or immoral in themself, not an artefact such as a book), but only in the way it is read. And a book can be read in various ways. Wilde’s apparently contradictory statements, forming a clashing ‘Kettle Logic’, in fact distinguish between different ways of reading, and different readers. In a paradox which Wilde himself would have appreciated, it is the aesthetic reader rather than the moralistic reader whose approach to the text purifies it, defusing in advance any possible immoral effect it might otherwise have. To be a decadent aesthete, therefore, is to preserve oneself from moral stain.

© Peter Benson 2008"

Recently, I read The Picture of Dorian Gray and watched the classic 1945 version of the movie. And I'm currently reading Joseph Pearce's biography of Wilde, The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde.

http://www.amazon.com/Unmasking-Oscar-W ... arce+books

http://www.amazon.com/Picture-Dorian-Do ... orian+gray

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000OH ... UTF8&psc=1

Hence, Hex's opinion is of immediate interest to me.

tbieter wrote:...Hex's opinion is of immediate interest to me.

I doubt it will be when you hear it.
Oscar Wilde was an interesting bloke; you'll know all this, Tom, from the biographies. He is the best example of an aesthete that I know. To him there was beautiful, and there was worthless. He would apparently rehearse lines in front of the mirror, so that if the opportunity arose, he could deliver a quip with practised insouciance. Ironically, his best known epigram ("I wish I had said that." -"You will.") was actually James McNeill Whistler saying it to him. Whistler is my favourite American artist, although artisticsolution is in the running; he could match Wilde for affectation: painting all day in a white suit and stepping out in the same suit in an evening to show the skill of not putting paint anywhere but where you meant it to be, to people who were mostly oblivious. What is striking about both is their need to control, they were radical, but I don't think they were spontaneous.
Wilde makes the point that nothing laid before you has moral content; whatever happens, happens. It is only us human beings that ascribe a value.

@ tbieter

One has to be unusual stupid in order to be explained by others what should be very selfexplanatory, that books or any other media can be immoral.

This is stooping down to retard lvl, or something that could only be relevant for very small children.

..it's very simple..

HexHammer wrote:One has to be unusual stupid in order to be explained by others what should be very selfexplanatory, that books or any other media can be immoral.

Mr Hammer, a string of letters, words or images are not immoral in themselves; it is only when creatures that can reason (you might want to look beyond yourself at this point) invest such things with meaning that they take on a moral aspect.

But words are composed into strings by someone who intends to express a certain meaning by them.

There may be a misunderstanding between the reader and the writer of course, but quite often the inteded meaning is grasped by the reader.

Let us make our own example:

"We kill people and take their property and this is because God wants us to do it and therefore we are good."

Is this sentence intrinsically immoral or not ?

(I am not quite sure if the word "intrinsical" fits here ... )

I know about Wilde and the scandal he caused from the novel "The Master", which is about Henry James.

Wilde provoked the established society and the society felt threatened by the "outrage".

duszek wrote:But words are composed into strings by someone who intends to express a certain meaning by them.

Fair point, duszek.

duszek wrote:There may be a misunderstanding between the reader and the writer of course, but quite often the inteded meaning is grasped by the reader.

Let us make our own example:

"We kill people and take their property and this is because God wants us to do it and therefore we are good."

Is this sentence intrinsically immoral or not ?

(I am not quite sure if the word "intrinsical" fits here ... )

The thing is, I don't think that sentence is intrinsically immoral. In it's current context, it is not being written by anyone who intends to act on it. Although I grant you, anyone who says it and means it is immoral in my book.

Do you think then, uwot, that words are just neutral tools ?

And therefore if baby says this sentence or a parroquet or a foreigner who speakes no English at all then the sentence is not immoral ?

Like when a baby holds a gun there is no crime ?


P.S. Does your name come from "you what?" ? I like it and the general attitude towards the universe behind it.

duszek wrote:Do you think then, uwot, that words are just neutral tools ?

Well the signs and sounds in themselves are completely meaningless. What does it mean to call them moral?

duszek wrote:And therefore if baby says this sentence or a parroquet or a foreigner who speakes no English at all then the sentence is not immoral ?

To use your own example: "We kill people and take their property and this is because God wants us to do it and therefore we are good." You wrote it; are you therefore immoral?

duszek wrote:Like when a baby holds a gun there is no crime ?

I'm fairly certain that where I'm from, anyone who either gave a gun to an infant or who failed to prevent an infant getting hold of a gun they were responsible for, would be found criminally negligent, so there is a crime. Perhaps I'm a victim of circumstances, but I think that's right. I think the point you are making, though, is that if a child were to pull the trigger and kill or maim someone, they had not acted immorally. I would agree. One of the many things that amazes me is that there are some people who believe that a baby can be guilty of a crime that warrants an eternity of punishment before they can control their bowels, much less make rational choices; that's christianity for you.

duszek wrote:P.S. Does your name come from "you what?" ? I like it and the general attitude towards the universe behind it.

Yes, it does and thank you, but I'm either the way god (Boo!) or nature (Hooray!) made me. I'm touched that you like my game, but I can only play the cards I've been dealt.

Your mode of existence is permanent disbelief ...

You sound at peace with yourself. I wish I could do the same.

If you cite you don´t perform the act of speech that is usually expressed by the words.

But when we read something we imagine the act of speech going with the words.

"The world is bad and I hate it."

If you read it in a book does the writer sound immoral ?

duszek wrote:"The world is bad and I hate it."

If you read it in a book does the writer sound immoral ?

It's a dismal outlook, but I don't think there is anything morally wrong with thinking it. Do you?

How about this outlook then:

"The world is bad and I will destroy it."